Field-by-field comparison

Compare the evidence before choosing an MCP.

Each signal stays separate, missing facts remain visible, and the column order follows your selection.

MCPs in this comparison

Uncheck an MCP to remove it. Comparing two or three keeps each signal in its own row.

Open canonical comparison link

Comparable alternatives

Shown only when capability or industry context overlaps.

Side-by-side MCP evidence comparison
Evidence fieldGoogle Search Console MCP Server for SEOsMCP100 RecommendedIDA Pro MCPMCP100 Recommended
Task fit
Best for
  • SEO analysis across Search Console properties, queries, pages, indexing status, and sitemaps
  • Querying and annotating functions, decompilation, references, types, and other IDA analysis context
Not ideal for
  • General web analytics or SEO work that does not use Google Search Console data
  • Users without IDA Pro or workflows that require a fully autonomous malware-analysis verdict
Avoid when
  • You cannot grant the configured OAuth user or service account access to the relevant Search Console property
  • The IDA database or binary cannot be disclosed to the AI client or agent-made changes cannot be reverted
Provenance
Provenance details

Community implementation

github:aminforou · Publisher source ↗

Community implementation

github:mrexodia · Publisher source ↗

Maintenance
Maintenance details

Repo: Sep 15, 2026

Package: Not documented

Repo: Sep 22, 2026

Package: Not documented

Popularity evidence
GitHub stars

1,712

GitHub stars · checked 2026-09-24T04:14:16.248000Z

12,290

GitHub stars · checked 2026-09-24T04:14:39.534000Z

Client coverage
Client coverage details
Claude Code✓ Local stdio
Claude Desktop✓ Local stdio
Codex✓ Local stdio
VS Code✓ Local stdio
Cursor✓ Local stdio
OpenCode✓ Local stdio
Claude Code✓ Local stdio
Claude Desktop✓ Local stdio
Codex✓ Local stdio
VS Code✓ Local stdio
Cursor✓ Local stdio
OpenCode✓ Local stdio
Client coverage noteLocal stdio runs on your computer. Streamable HTTP connects to a remotely hosted MCP server.
Access and data
AuthenticationUses Google OAuth client-secrets JSON and browser login, or a Google service-account JSON whose email has access to the Search Console property.No authentication mechanism is documented. Localhost defaults limit the transport scope but are not authentication.
CostThe MIT-licensed server lists no MCP fee. Google Cloud or Search Console quota and billing implications are not documented.No project price is documented. IDA Pro is a prerequisite; its licensing and pricing are separate.
PermissionsLists Google Search Console properties and reads analytics, URL inspection, and sitemap data. Site and sitemap add/delete tools are disabled unless GSC_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE=true.Reads and analyzes local IDA databases and binaries. Documented tools can modify comments, assembly, names, types, functions, and bookmarks, control the debugger, and execute Python.
Data handlingSearch Console properties, queries, pages, crawl and indexing results, and sitemap data are returned to the connected client. OAuth tokens are saved for reuse; service-account JSON is read from a configured path. Further retention is not documented.Processes local binaries, IDA databases, and debugger state. HTTP, SSE, and headless modes expose service endpoints. The reviewed sources do not document telemetry, retention, or external data handling.
Limitations
Tradeoffs
  • It reduces manual reporting work, but the assistant can see sensitive search-performance data and optional destructive site or sitemap operations require an explicit flag.
  • The bridge accelerates interactive reversing, but requires IDA Pro and expert review of both decompiler output and agent modifications.
Risk contextCan expose private Search Console data and, when explicitly enabled, modify sites or sitemaps. Protect credential files, leave destructive tools disabled unless required, and restrict remote SSE deployments.High-impact reverse-engineering access includes IDB mutation, binary patching, Python execution, and debugger control. Prefer the documented read-only profile where possible, keep endpoints local, and review binding, CORS, and authentication before any remote use.
Evidence date
Editorial review2026-08-112026-08-11
Candidate evidence2026-09-24T04:25:05.554391Z2026-09-24T04:25:05.554391Z

Popularity, maintenance, fit, permissions, and client support are independent evidence fields.

Read the evidence method →